Many people find driving at night to be extremely fatiguing to their eyes. In general, there are two sources for that fatigue: one is the glare of headlights from oncoming traffic, and the second is the glare of headlights from the rear and side view mirrors. The problems created from glare off a rear view mirror have been eliminated quite easily. Auto manufacturers have solved the problems associated with the rear view mirror by outfitting just about every car with a center mirror featuring a dimable night setting to reduce the glare. For the headlights from the oncoming traffic, there have been many U.S. patents issued for eye wear devices which attempt to reduce glare from this source. However, in their endeavors to reduce glare from oncoming traffic, they all have a similar flaws. They severely reduce the driver's overall scope of vision and ability to see clearly by putting shaded or partially shaded lenses directly in front of the driver's eyes. This inhibits the drivers front, forward vision. Until a device is formulated that will reduce the glare from oncoming cars without limiting one's vision, drivers will simply have to cope with the annoyance of oncoming traffic.
Several of these patents, such as U.S. Pat. No. 5,252,997 to Christenberry (October 1993), U.S. Pat. No. 4,828,380 to Cherian (May 1989), and U.S. Pat. No. 4,678,296 to Smith (July 1987), describe devices that attempted to reduce glare from side view mirrors. There are flaws associated with these devices. First, since their attempt to reduce glare from the side view mirrors was in addition to its attempt to reduce glare from oncoming headlights, they would still reduce a driver's main forward vision. Second, some of these devices shade the eyes by positioning opaque material to intercept the peripheral glare. This would create a blind spot in the driver's periphery. Third, these devices can create their own glare for the driver. The designs of these devices will allow headlights from following cars, at a certain undesired angle, to reflect directly off of the shaded lens as well as the frames and into the driver's eye. The driver will receive glare from the very device which he or she is using to reduce glare. In the sunglass industry, this is often referred to as "collateral glare." Fourth, since both cars and people come in a variety of shapes and sizes, the position in one's periphery in which the side view mirrors are located can vary greatly from person to person and from car to car. Most of these devices suffer in that their peripheral shading is not adjustable. The only way these devices could accommodate a variety of cars and trucks would be to design the peripheral shading to be large enough to cover all possible sources of glare. In addition to suffering from severe collateral glare, such a large lens would significantly reduce the peripheral visibility of the driver. The few of these devices which do account for adjustability still suffer from the first three problems.
One particular patent, U.S. Pat. No. 3,596,290 to Kennedy (August 1971), describes an attachable flat visor designed to shade the driver from the glare of the Sun. Although the design does not attempt to shade the driver's forward vision, Kennedy's visor would not work well if attempting to intercept glare from one's side view mirrors. Because the Kennedy visor is designed to be attached directly to the temple arm, and to lie outside the frame, to actually block the glare from the side view mirrors would require that the visor to sit so far forward on the arm that it would extend out in front of the frame itself. Although it would not create an absolute blind spot, the visor, a relatively large lens extending out so far forward, would again significantly reduce a driver's peripheral vision and would also be an unbearable source of collateral glare.
The "Eye Guard and Shield for Spectacles," U.S. Pat. No. 893,972 to Bayless (July 1908), which blocks the light from the side totally, could be used while driving, but although allowing clear forward vision, they would also create blind spots in the driver's periphery. Many recent innovations in sunglasses, such as Oakley's U.S. Pat. No. 4,515,448 to Tackles (June 1985), do in fact include peripheral shading, but again only in addition to shading of light entering from the forward scope of vision. This would once again unsafely reduce one's overall visibility at night. Obviously, it is unsafe to drive at night while wearing regular sunglasses.
To successfully eliminate glare from side view mirrors, a device must not impair a driver's normal forward vision, must not create any collateral glare, must accommodate a variety of drivers and cars, and must not create a blind spot nor significantly reduce peripheral vision. What is needed is a device that will reduce the glare from the reflection of headlights in the side view mirrors of an automobile. The needed device should reduce strain to the eyes of a driver. Such a device should in no way inhibit a driver's forward field of vision. The solution should provide a device that will be adjustable to any driver in any car or truck, and not significantly reduce the peripheral vision of a driver. The needed device should not create collateral glare for the driver, nor create a blind spot. The needed device should be inexpensive to manufacture and easily adapt to accommodate the specific needs of consumers. Clearly, none of the patents mentioned above meet all these criteria.